Kerala

Idukki

CC/35/2021

Nijo Johny - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jojo Joseph - Opp.Party(s)

16 Dec 2021

ORDER

DATE OF FILING :10.2.2021

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION IDUKKI

Dated this the 16^th day of December, 2021

Present :

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL P. MEMBER

SRI. AMPADY K.S. MEMBER

CC NO.35/2021

Between

Complainant : Nijo Johny, S/o. Johny,

Thenamkuttiyil House,

Mohappallikkara, Puthenkurish P.O.,

Ernakulam – 682 308.

(By Adv: P.A. Suhas)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. Jojo Joseph,

Thundiyil House,

Palamuttam, Padamugal,

Kakkanadu, Ernakulam – 682 021.

2. B. Useph,

Southern Motors & Upholstery Work

No.140 & 159,

M.M.A. Market,

Coimbathore.

(St. Marys Automobile Spare Service

and Fast Track Facility,

Reg. No.A-598/12,

Govt. College Road, Kattappana,

Idukki – 685 508.)

O R D E R

 

SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

This complaint is filed alleging the following against the opposite parties.

 

1. Complainant’s car ‘Nissan Sunny’ broke down during his travel from Ernakulam to Idukki. He contacted 1^st opposite party being a person known to him and told him about the incident. He said that car can be repaired for minor expense through a (cont….2)

- 2 -

person acquainted with him and he introduced 2^nd opposite party to him. Accordingly 2^nd opposite party inspected the vehicle at the spot.

 

2. Second opposite party informed the complainant that engine complaint happened and it had to be repaired and he promised to repair it at reasonable expense. So he entrusted the vehicle to 2^nd opposite party on 2.5.2019. He paid Rs.50000/- on the same day. 2^nd opposite party subsequently informed him that complaint occurred to Turbo and Rs.27000/- was needed for repairing this. So he paid this amount to him on 3.5.2019.

 

3. Due to overheating of his another car, ‘i20’ with Regn. No.KL-42-G-8080, he entrusted this vehicle to 2^nd opposite party’s institution at Coimbatore on 10.5.2019. 2^nd opposite party demanded Rs.10000/- for repairing the injector. So he paid this amount to the bank account of 2^nd opposite party. On his enquiry with the 2^nd opposite party about repair of the vehicle, he prolonged the same by saying that it will be done today or tomorrow and so on. On 30.5.2019, when he contacted him over phone, he told that certain other parts were also defective and for repairing the same, Rs.7500/- more is necessary. Hence he paid this amount in cash.

 

4. Later, on 7.6.2019, he reached the institution of 2^nd opposite party at Coimbatore and enquired about the car. At that time, 2^nd opposite party told him that 2^nd injector was also defective and to repair it, Rs.1,75,000/- is necessary. Accordingly he paid this amount also in cash to 2^nd opposite party. On 13.6.2019, he paid further amount of Rs.2500/- for changing engine oil. Eventhough these amounts were paid to him, he had not rectified the defects in proper way.

 

5. Due to suspicion about the conduct of 2^nd opposite party, vehicle was inspected through another mechanic and understood that replaced parts were second hand items. He asked about this to 2^nd opposite party, he replied that complaints can be rectified within 2 days. In both of his vehicles, duplicate spare parts were fitted by 2^nd opposite party.

 

6. Due to the failure of 2^nd opposite party to fulfill the promise, he had to suffer in terms of money and time.

 

Hence he prayed that loss occurred to him due to the unfair trade practice of 2^nd opposite party may be compensated and following reliefs were sought. (cont….3)

• 3 -

 

1. Opposite parties may be directed to refund Rs.2,69,500/- paid by him for repair of the vehicle.

2. Compensation of Rs.2 lakhs may be ordered to be paid by opposite parties to him towards unfair trade practice, for delay in repair and for mental agony suffered by him.

3. Cost of Rs.10,000/- may also be allowed.

 

At the time of hearing on admission, direction was given to complainant to produce related documents. But he has not produced the same. Opposite parties have not appeared. Hence they were set exparte on 18.3.2021. When the case was called on for exparte evidence on 18.11.2021 and 24.11.2021, complainant was absent and there was no representation also. Since the complainant was absent and has not produced any evidence to substantiate his contentions, we can only hold that complaint is unsustainable.

 

In the above circumstances, we dismiss the complaint as devoid of merits however, without any order as to costs.

 

Pronounced by this Commission on this the 16^th day of December, 2021

 

 

Sd/-

SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

Sd/-

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL P., MEMBER

 

 

APPENDIX : Nil.

 

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT